Dr. Ben Carson 2016?
I happened to be re-reading “Philosophy: Who needs it” last Thursday, and had just finished “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made”. Remember that essay on the serenity prayer?
“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.”
While Rand makes it perfectly clear that she disagrees with Reinhold Heibuhr’s ideas in every fundamental way, she finds a certain value in the prayer and uses it to introduce the topic of her essay on distinguishing between the metaphysical and the man-made and how to treat each.
So, later in the day (or maybe it was Friday), I hear that this fellow Dr. Ben Carson (who, up until then, I’d never even heard of) is considering a presidential run. Well, that set off a fast and furious google/youtube catch up session, and I’m now in part 2 of Ben Carson’s “One Nation”, and I watched “A Breath of Fresh Air” Sunday.
I found myself (as usual), trying to overlook (and translate) the bits about “If it’s God’s plan for me to run, then I will”, and praying for wisdom (do I want a president who might pray for answers to real problems and use divine revelation to choose the way he leads?).
In keeping with my tradition of “thinking out loud” Gulch posts, I really like this guy. He seems to exude a serenity that is the antithesis of what Rand describes as the men who “spend their lives in futile rebellion against the things they cannot change, in passive resignation to the things they can, and - never attempting to learn the difference - in chronic guilt and self-doubt on both counts”.
So I whipped out my personal decoding toolbox, because this is too important to ignore... a distinguished, “non-politician” actually talking about “serving” in a public office... definitely too important to ignore.
Here is my cheat sheet for translating religious language to rational language:
1. Prayer = meditation = settling extraneous thoughts to allow one’s entire attention to be focused on the topic at hand without making the error of allowing extraneous thoughts interfere with the process of assessing the topic.
2. God = the “spirit” of man = the “essence” of man = the “nature” of man = that part of every man which is common with every other man (that he is a rational animal, if you will).
3. God’s will = (in accordance with the previous translation) that which truly rational men must conclude is in their best interest.
This is no science, to be sure, but it works for me when assessing earnest men on either side. If Mr. Carson says that he is praying for wisdom with respect to running, I’m willing to interpret that to mean that he is settling his mind in order to bring his full attention to bear on the situation he would be placing himself into. Every indication is that he is capable of objectively discerning between the metaphysical and the man-made... how can any good medical doctor not? If Mr. Carson says that he will run if it is God’s will that he run, I’m willing to interpret that to mean that he thinks it is in his best interest as well as the best interest of other rational men for him to run.
I’m wondering how other members of the Gulch feel about him as a presidential candidate.
“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.”
While Rand makes it perfectly clear that she disagrees with Reinhold Heibuhr’s ideas in every fundamental way, she finds a certain value in the prayer and uses it to introduce the topic of her essay on distinguishing between the metaphysical and the man-made and how to treat each.
So, later in the day (or maybe it was Friday), I hear that this fellow Dr. Ben Carson (who, up until then, I’d never even heard of) is considering a presidential run. Well, that set off a fast and furious google/youtube catch up session, and I’m now in part 2 of Ben Carson’s “One Nation”, and I watched “A Breath of Fresh Air” Sunday.
I found myself (as usual), trying to overlook (and translate) the bits about “If it’s God’s plan for me to run, then I will”, and praying for wisdom (do I want a president who might pray for answers to real problems and use divine revelation to choose the way he leads?).
In keeping with my tradition of “thinking out loud” Gulch posts, I really like this guy. He seems to exude a serenity that is the antithesis of what Rand describes as the men who “spend their lives in futile rebellion against the things they cannot change, in passive resignation to the things they can, and - never attempting to learn the difference - in chronic guilt and self-doubt on both counts”.
So I whipped out my personal decoding toolbox, because this is too important to ignore... a distinguished, “non-politician” actually talking about “serving” in a public office... definitely too important to ignore.
Here is my cheat sheet for translating religious language to rational language:
1. Prayer = meditation = settling extraneous thoughts to allow one’s entire attention to be focused on the topic at hand without making the error of allowing extraneous thoughts interfere with the process of assessing the topic.
2. God = the “spirit” of man = the “essence” of man = the “nature” of man = that part of every man which is common with every other man (that he is a rational animal, if you will).
3. God’s will = (in accordance with the previous translation) that which truly rational men must conclude is in their best interest.
This is no science, to be sure, but it works for me when assessing earnest men on either side. If Mr. Carson says that he is praying for wisdom with respect to running, I’m willing to interpret that to mean that he is settling his mind in order to bring his full attention to bear on the situation he would be placing himself into. Every indication is that he is capable of objectively discerning between the metaphysical and the man-made... how can any good medical doctor not? If Mr. Carson says that he will run if it is God’s will that he run, I’m willing to interpret that to mean that he thinks it is in his best interest as well as the best interest of other rational men for him to run.
I’m wondering how other members of the Gulch feel about him as a presidential candidate.
He is against me having a tank and a bazooka.
Fine, I do not want any of those, but Carson thinks semiautomatic weapons should be banned in heavily populated area.
He needs to define semiautomatic. I think he is thinking AR-15 when a pistol with a clip is also a semiautomatic. Then I surfed to another site that I really like. He's against gun registration!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...
I did like your analogy of prayer, God & God' s will. Very interesting translation.
There are many factors that bring me to this belief. All I have time to share for consideration is this. If we only start moving slowly to the right, it does nothing to change the entitlement mentality. Too many people will see someone else still getting a handout which will cause them to want theirs too. It will make people angry. If everything is cut all at once we will all be treated equally and if all the money that has been consumed and wasted by t he government is put back into the economy life would improve so drastically for everyone there would be nothing to complain about.
I like Rand Paul too but he is still moderate in too many ways, IMHO.
A hard right "fiscal" turn is basically mandatory. I'm not sure how the executive branch fits in though. It proposes a budget, but congress ultimately controls the passage of that budget. More importantly, congress controls taxation. Reckless tax cuts coupled and reduced spending that net to 0 get us nowhere with respect to the national debt. If I were a foreign nation lending to the US, the only numbers of any significance would be current debt and current payments against that debt principle (surpluses applied to debt). Once the dollar is no longer the reserve currency, the implosion will come quickly.
Am I wrong in believing that congress has more power to make a hard right fiscal turn than the president, and that a more moderate president, (or rather, a charismatic and honest president) will help the masses swallow the "bad medicine" without significant retaliation at the polls?
I would also argue that we need a hard right turn both fiscally and socially because they are connected. :)
"Ok, America, it is time to batten down the hatches. We must all weather the storm voluntarily and with full understanding that these things must be done to prevent the errors of our past from sinking the ship."
Who will utter those words? I think it has to be the president. What president could make it stick? My answer is: only an honest one.
So beware that we do not fall into someone else's well-worn verbal rut.
Jan
At this point I disagree that he's for big government, and I think perhaps his stance on arms might have been misconstrued. Now that he's announced lets see where it takes him. In any case just remember that Hillary would be a really bad choice for this country of ours.
"Wouldn't it be great to at least once have a non-politician in the White House?" I like the idea... How could it be worse? Considering what the professional politicians have brought us... Given a choice between Mr. Carson and Hillary there really is no choice. He would not be my first choice, but I have never really had that option...
Respectfully,
O.A.
I would like to see a strong candidate with a business background-an entrepreneur who understands economics-I am partial to governors because you can look at their record-a mini-nation and see their accomplishments under pressure. They don' have to have a tremendous understanding of foreign policy, but they have to be able to pull together a team of people who do have that knowledge. Carson is a brain surgeon. He is an expert at that.
I am SO proud of you! You translated perfectly.
I am sure that you have heard the phrase "The Kingdom of God is within you.". You are certainly showing proof of that.
God expects reasoning from us but sometimes reasoning becomes far too often rationalization in Washington.
I am certain also that you have experienced times when thoughts occur to you that seem to come out-of-the-blue that help you to solve a perplexing problem. That is because you have "built the kingdom within you" or as we would say in modern language: You have programmed your inner computer very well.
And yes, they do occur most often when my mind is free of superfluous thoughts (meditation/prayer state).
30 years -- well derived;;; it's a good way to take
people whose rationality is largely sound "at face value," I think. -- j
You state an interesting premise, however it calls for a response form someone that does believe in God. While I appreciate your interpretations of Dr. Carson's comments regarding God's will in determining his own decisions, I would ask that people refrain from re-phrasing his comments and putting other words in his mouth.
Dr. Carson, I'm sure truly believes in God and his statements need no interpretation.
I certainly appreciate that you didn't attempt to belittle his statements regarding God.
Frankly I would much rather have a president who truly believes in God and looks to him for guidance.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
The question that any rational and/or religious person has to ask is "which God"? Do any two people believe in exactly the same definition of prayer? Do any two people believe in exactly the same God? Do any two people agree on God’s will?
The bible is a great source of wisdom, but it is non-integrated, and each person may choose to use it to the best of their ability in their personal pursuit of wisdom. Objectivism is an integrated philosophy, but it does not teach Objectivists how to get along with non-Objectivists.
Everyone must take responsibility for interpreting words/concepts they do not understand if they have any desire to get along with people who are not like them.
If you read what you wrote and substitute “the God of the Jihadist Muslims” for “God”, you will see that it does, in fact, require interpretation.
(Admittedly, by default, I assume that you mean the Christian God who is also Jesus, as described by one of the many Protestant religions, and that this is roughly the same thing that Dr. Carson means.)
Respectfully,
-Michael
While you a good argument for your positions and interpretations, I still believe that there is at least a small lack of understanding of what Christians believe.
While it is often misunderstood that god and Jesus a two different personages, God is the Father and Jesus is his son, non believers often get confused.
The “God” of the Muslims may or may not be the same as the Christian God, but it seems very clear that the present understanding of that God is not the same as what Christians understand their God to represent
Furthermore, in my view that there is also a great misunderstanding about Objectivism and Christianity by many Ayn Rand followers. Objectivism calls for man to be free to live his life for his own benefit and that he owes other no part of his life in any fashion. Does that mean a man wouldn't risk his life for his children's safety?
Does it mean he is not allowed to help a stranger as long as he does so of his own free will? I believe that is where Ayn Rand might have been misunderstood and her own rejection of religion was not necessary a rejection of the principles of Christianity.
Of course my bottom line is that I would rather have a president who in moments of doubt get's down on his knees and asks for God's guidance.
You of course are entitled to not believe in anything at all, but please remember that it's not Christians that want laws passed that prohibits expressions of faith, it is the atheist that most often want government to enforce such prohibitions. It is to Ayn Rand's credit that she never expressed a desire to prohibit religion.
Respectfully yours,
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
You seem to imply that free will decisions to risk ones life for the safety of ones children or to help a stranger in distress are principles of Christianity. I think that these principles existed well before Christianity. Christianity just adopted them, appropriately, I should say.
It seems for certain that Ayn Rand wanted Christians to be free as much as everybody else. Would you agree?
I want someone who believes that the entire matter of [my health, my dogs health, my car repair] is in their hands, not waiting for cosmic intervention. (If it turns out that there IS a God/gods and they choose to cosmically intervene to the positive, that is well and good, but it is a bonus to the human 'doing his best'.)
Jan
Jan
Moving on from there, I do like Rand Paul, but haven't decided if he's executive material yet. Ditto for Paul Ryan.
As for Dr. Carson, I'm sure he's a fine man in many respects, but I have two primary concerns with him as a Presidential candidate:
1) He is no more qualified for the Presidency than Barack Obama was in 2008.
2) I am suspicious of anyone who can not comment on any issue without bringing religion into it. I am not religious in any sense, and I think that religion (or lack thereof) should be a personal matter, not something to repeatedly pronounce in public.
Admittedly, the country will not elect an atheist President in the foreseeable future - but they will also probably not elect a man who has regular two-way conversations with God and talks about it in public.
I would certainly not be averse to placing Dr. Carson in one role where I do think he would be very well placed - Surgeon General.
Where did man come from again?
Nevermind that it came from the driveway of the local mob boss, and he's looking for it. Driving it would be unwise.
Is Dr. Carson enough of a change - and does he truly have the strength, integrity, and courage - to break us away from the two-name one-party system we have now? Or is he just another party platform performer to get votes and power? We've been playing the mono-party dynasty game way too long. How long before the cycle is broken? Is he the one to do it?
Two - and be warned ahead of time, some will find offense I dared to ask this - Is Dr. Carson the most qualified candidate for the job, or is he the most qualified candidate of color? Before you start the "You racist" flame war... I know a lot of libs (from when I was on that side of the fence) who voted for him because he was not the best candidate (with his inexperience, I would fathom one of the worst) but because he was a young, handsome, black man. Every time someone had a genuine issue with his beliefs, policies, history, and most importantly, lack of qualifications, people would support him by saying these issues were "racist".
I'll finish this off by saying this. I like the man, and while he is *far* better than what we have now, I think we could do better. He didn't impress me that much when he ran last time, and nothing about him has fundamentally changed.
And for God's sake... what we need is someone who can bring back our country... A return to being America, not a continuation of the monoparty power structure. Who has the guts, integrity, stamina, and courage to turn what we have on its ear, and return us to greatness?
THAT is who should be running.
Now, that reasoning isn't why we're Christians, but regardless, it exists to support our brains' willingness to accept our faith. God didn't design us to blindly accept words without any reason to accept them. There's evidence to back it up. Christ didn't plop down on Earth and say "here I am, I'm God, worship me" without showing evidence to back up his claim of divinity. Same thing with the authenticity of the Bible itself.
I designed the translations to help myself resist the temptation to make assumptions about many religions and traditions - not just Christianity. I think Ben Carson might actually suggest that you took offense prematurely. I never even said I was atheist.
His inconsistencies (noted below) are much due to his religious beliefs.
Load more comments...